DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see remarks and claims, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to rejections of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the following: see details below.
On page 8, the applicant argues that the references do not recite having three separate control circuits, one for each lamp body type. The claim as written recites a first, second and third control circuit connected to the first lamp, second and third bodies for adjusting []. The claim does not provide any details where the first, second and third control circuits would be required to be independent/separate of one another. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any control circuit capable of performing/controlling the three lamp bodies would read over the claimed limitation. It is further noted that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See 2143. However, in order to advance prosecution, this argument is considered persuasive. However, Avni reference is understood to teach over the claimed imitation explicitly.
On page 9, the applicant argues that the ratio is not taught by the references discovered and further points to paragraph [0235]. This appears to be an error since the specification only goes up to [0105]. Therefore, the examiner is unable to review the specified portion of the specification. However, in order to advance prosecution, the applicant’s arguments regarding Matz is considered persuasive. However Avni reference is understood to teach maintaining illumination ratio (claims 2 and 13). Alternatively, not taking any steps would allow the illumination not to be the same which itself would read over claims 4 and 14. Should the applicant point to the correct portion of the specification, or provide examples of criticality, the Examiner would be happy to revisit this argument at a later time.
The applicant argues that claims 4-7, 10-12 and 15 are allowable by virtue of their dependency. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive.
Double Patenting rejection will be maintained and repeated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20050124858 to Matsuzawa et al. (hereinafter “Matsu” – on IDS) in view of CN104398231A to Yuan et al. (hereinafter “Yuan” – on IDS) and CA2773795A1 to Khan et al. (hereinafter “Khan”) and US 20030117491 to Avni.
Regarding claim 1. (Original) Mats discloses a capsule endoscope imaging device (abstract, para 0009, 0061, 0090, etc. “capsule type endoscope”) , comprising: first lamp bodies, which emit white light (para 0090, para 0174 “light emitting portion 241 emitting white light”); second lamp bodies, which emit light (para 0174, “another light emitting portion 242”, para 0177 “light-emitting portions 242 (242A)”) with a central wavelength of 510nm-540nm (para 0177, “light-emitting portions 242 (242A) [], red light 485-515 nm”; "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)); third lamp bodies, which emit light with a central wavelength of 400nm-420nm (para 0174, “another light emitting portion 242”, para 0177 “light-emitting portions 242 (242B) [], blue light (400-430 nm)”; optimizing the range, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955));
Matz discloses light-emitting portions 241, 242 (242A and 242B) are separately controlled by an LED driving circuit (para 0174, 0178 “light-emitting portions 241 and 242 are separately controlled by the LED driving circuit,”).
However, Matz fails to disclose having a first control circuit, which is connected to the first lamp bodies, for adjusting exposure time or voltage of the first lamp bodies; a second control circuit, which is connected to the second lamp bodies, for adjusting exposure time or voltage of the second lamp bodies; a third control circuit, which is connected to the third lamp bodies, for adjusting exposure time or voltage of the third lamp bodies.
Yuan, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches a stereoscopic endoscope light source brightness adjustment system and method, and provides the motivation for adjusting the brightness of a light source by changing the magnitude of a working voltage of a cold light source, to avoid image blurring and image overexposure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the motivation to the first control circuit, second control circuit, and the third control circuit of Matz, to adjust the brightness of the first, second and third lamp body, as taught by Yuan, to provide the predictable result of avoiding image blurring and image overexposure. Moreover, an exposure time is a conventional substation means for a voltage.
Matz as modified by Yuan renders obvious the limitations above but fails to explicitly disclose the central wavelength range of 510 nm – 540 nm; and a switching circuit configured to alternate between (i) a white light imaging mode in which the first lamp bodies are activated and the second lamp bodies and the third lamp bodies are deactivated, and (ii) a narrow-band imaging mode in which the second lamp bodies and the third lamp bodies are simultaneously activated and the first lamp bodies are deactivated.
Khan, from a similar field of endeavor teaches having light source 125 [] wherein when capturing endoscopic images, several changeable light modes can be used, such as white-band imaging (WBI), narrow-band imaging (NBI), and, in some cases, auto-fluorescence imaging (AFI). In WBI, broad spectrum light (e.g., white light) is used to illuminate the GI surface. In NBI, two or more discrete bands of light can be used [] such as, one blue and one green wavelength of light can be used (e.g., with center wavelengths at 415 nm and at 540 nm). Narrow band blue light can be suitable for displaying superficial capillary networks, while narrow band green light can be suitable for displaying subepithelial vessels. When the two are combined, a high contrast image of the tissue surface can be produced (Description, para [42]). Khan further teaches having duplex communication to enable remote switching between WBI and NBI modes (Description, para [452]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Matz as modified by Yuan with the teachings of Khan, because doing so would provide the predictable result of illuminating the GI surface using a white light while providing a high contrast image of the tissue surface by combining the special lights.
In arguendo, should the first, second and third lamp circuits be different from one another. Avni, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to provide different LED driver for each light source (fig. 11, para 0120, 0122) controlled by a processing unit to provide control of each led driver which in turn provide the suitable current to the Led light source. (para 0122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Matz as modified by Yuan and Khan with the known teachings of Avni to provide the predictable result of controlling each light source.
Regarding claim 2. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the capsule endoscope imaging device of claim 1, wherein before the second control circuit adjusts the exposure time or voltage of the second lamp bodies and the third control circuit adjusts the exposure time or voltage of the third lamp bodies, a ratio of luminous energy of the third lamp bodies to luminous energy of the second lamp bodies is Ki, and after the second control circuit adjusts the exposure time or voltage of the second lamp bodies and the third control circuit adjusts the exposure time or voltage of the third lamp bodies, the ratio of the luminous energy of the third lamp bodies to the luminous energy of the second lamp bodies is K2, wherein K1=K2 (It is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding the “before”, “after”, the adjustment nor does it require any specific steps to keep the ratio of luminous energy between the second and third lamp bodies. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, Matz discloses a device that is capable of operating while maintaining a ratio.; Yuan teaches controlling various levels to control quality; Khan teaches combining the special lights; See Avni para 0116 teaches maintaining “illumination intensity”). MPEP 2143 (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the capsule endoscope imaging device of claim 1, wherein before the second control circuit adjusts the exposure time or voltage of the second lamp bodies and the third control circuit adjusts the exposure time or voltage of the third lamp bodies, the ratio of luminous energy of the third lamp bodies to luminous energy of the second lamp bodies is Ki, and after the second control circuit adjusts the exposure time or voltage of the second lamp bodies and the third control circuit adjusts the exposure time or voltage of the third lamp bodies, the ratio of the luminous energy of the third lamp bodies to the luminous energy of the second lamp bodies is K2, wherein Ki (does not equal) K2 (It is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding the “before”, “after”, the adjustment nor does it require any specific steps to keep the ratio of luminous energy between the second and third lamp bodies. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, Matz discloses a device that is capable of operating while maintaining a ratio. Here, turning on/off the lights without maintaining the illumination intensity would read over the claimed limitation. MPEP 2143 (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the capsule endoscope imaging device of claim 1, wherein the capsule endoscope imaging device further comprises a mounting board, with the first lamp bodies, the second lamp bodies and the third lamp bodies distributed on the mounting board along its circumferential direction (Matz, fig. 30A-B, para 0167).
Regarding claim 5. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the capsule endoscope imaging device of claim 4, wherein at least two of each of the first lamp bodies, the second lamp bodies, and the third lamp bodies are provided, and the first lamp bodies, the second lamp bodies, and the third lamp bodies are distributed alternately on the mounting board (Matz, figs 30-32).
Regarding claim 6. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the capsule endoscope imaging device of claim 4, wherein at least two first lamp bodies are provided, and evenly distributed on the mounting board, with the second lamp bodies and the third lamp bodies also evenly distributed on the mounting board (Matz, figs 30-32).
Regarding claim 7. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the capsule endoscope imaging device of claim 1, wherein the first lamp bodies, the second lamp bodies, and the third lamp bodies are LED lights (Matz, para 0169 “LED”).
Regarding claim 8. (Currently amended) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious a capsule endoscope, wherein the capsule endoscope comprises the capsule endoscope imaging device according to claim 1 (Matz, para 0172)
Regarding claim 9. (Currently amended) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious an imaging method for the capsule endoscope imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging method comprises: pre-setting a brightness value Jr of an image under ideal imaging conditions; acquiring a brightness value Jo of an image captured by a camera of the capsule endoscope (Matz, para 0174 “image is acquired”, Yuan, image acquisition module); comparing the brightness value Jo with the brightness value Ir, and adjusting the exposure time or voltage of one or more of the first lamp bodies, the second lamp bodies and the third lamp bodies according to the comparison result, to adjust the imaging effect of the first lamp bodies, the second lamp bodies, or the third lamp bodies (Matz, para 0079, 0082, 0122). MPEP 2143 (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the imaging method of claim 9, wherein, when adjusting the imaging effect of the first lamp bodies, pre-setting a brightness value Irn of a white light image under ideal imaging conditions; acquiring a brightness value Joi of a white light image captured by the camera;
PNG
media_image1.png
12
16
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comparing the brightness value Joi with the brightness value Irn, increasing exposure time T~i or voltage V~i of the first lamp bodies when Joi is less than I n and decreasing the exposure time T~i or voltage V~i when Joi is greater than Irl (Yuan, description, adjusting the light sources).
Regarding claim 11. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the imaging method of claim 10, wherein, in the step of increasing or decreasing the
PNG
media_image2.png
10
8
media_image2.png
Greyscale
exposure time T~i or voltage V~i of the first lamp bodies, calculating an initial luminous energy Wwoi of the first lamp bodies based on an initial voltage Vwoi and an initial exposure time twoi of the first lamp bodies;calculating luminous energy Wwwl of the first lamp bodies based on the exposure time T~i or voltage V~i of the first lamp bodies after increase or decrease; increasing the exposure time T~i or voltage V~i of the first lamp bodies by a control circuit
PNG
media_image3.png
12
16
media_image3.png
Greyscale
when the brightness value Joi is less than the brightness value I n
PNG
media_image4.png
12
15
media_image4.png
Greyscale
to make Wwwi>Wwoi; anddecreasing the exposure time T~i or voltage V~i of the first lamp bodies by the control circuit when the brightness value Joi is greater than the brightness value I n to make Ww~i<Wwoi (Yuan, description, adjusting the light sources, compare it with the image brightness threshold, etc.).
Regarding claim 12. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the imaging method of claim 9, wherein, when adjusting the imaging effect of the second lamp bodies and the third lamp bodies, pre-setting a brightness value Ir2 of a narrow-band light image under ideal imaging conditions; acquiring a brightness value 102 of a narrow-band light image captured by the camera;comparing the brightness value 102 with the brightness value Jr2, increasing exposure time TW2 and/or voltage VW2 of the second lamp bodies and/or the third lamp bodies when I02 is less than and decreasing the exposure time TW2 and/or voltage VW2 of the second lamp bodies and/or the third lamp bodies when I02 is greater than Ir2 (Yuan, description, adjusting the light sources, compare it with the image brightness threshold, etc.).
Regarding claim 13. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the imaging method of claim 12, wherein, before adjusting the exposure time TW2 and/or voltage VW2 of the second lamp bodies and/or the third lamp bodies, a ratio of luminous energy of the third lamp bodies to luminous energy of the second lamp bodies is Ki, and after adjusting the exposure time TW2 and/or voltage VW2 of the second lamp bodies and/or the third lamp bodies, the ratio of the luminous energy of the third lamp bodies to the luminous energy of the second lamp bodies is K2, wherein Ki= K2 (Yuan, description, adjusting the light sources, compare it with the image brightness threshold, etc. See Avni para 0116 teaches maintaining “illumination intensity”).
Regarding claim 14. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the imaging method of claim 12, wherein, before adjusting the exposure time TW2 and/or voltage VW2 of the second lamp bodies and/or the third lamp bodies, a ratio of luminous energy of the third lamp bodies to luminous energy of the second lamp bodies is Ki, and after adjusting the exposure time TW2 and/or voltage VW2 of the second lamp bodies and/or the third lamp bodies, the ratio of the luminous energy of the third lamp bodies to the luminous energy of the second lamp bodies is K2, wherein Kid K2. (It is noted that the claim does not provide any details regarding the “before”, “after”, the adjustment nor does it require any specific steps to keep the ratio of luminous energy between the second and third lamp bodies. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, Matz discloses a device that is capable of operating while maintaining a ratio. Here, turning on/off the lights without maintaining the illumination intensity would read over the claimed limitation.)
Regarding claim 15. (Original) Matz as modified by Yuan, Khan and Avni renders obvious the imaging method of claim 12, wherein the step of increasing or decreasing the exposure time TW2 or voltage VW2 of the second lamp bodies and/or the third lamp bodies comprises: calculating an initial luminous energy Ww02 of the second lamp bodies based on an initial voltage Vw02 and an initial exposure time tw02 of the second lamp bodies; calculating an initial luminous energy Wwo3 of the third lamp bodies based on an initial voltage Vwo3 and an initial exposure time tw03 of the third lamp bodies; increasing or decreasing the exposure time TW2 and/or voltage VW2 of the second lamp bodies and the third lamp bodies, and calculating luminous energy WW2 of the second lamp bodies and luminous energy Ww3 of the third lamp bodies; making Ww2>WW02 and Ww3 >WW03 when the brightness value 102 is less than the brightness value Ire; making Ww2<Wwo2 and Ww3<Wwo3 when the brightness value 102 is greater than the brightness value Ir2 (Yuan, description, adjusting the light sources, compare it with the image brightness threshold, etc.).
Double Patenting
Claim 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 18/722,584. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20100266202 to Minai; US 20090192351 to Nishino;
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights